The court upheld the validity of minimum qualifying marks in judicial appointments, affirming that candidates who do not meet these criteria lack standing to challenge the selection process.

SUMEET GOEL, JUDGE

1. The petition in hand, in essence, assails the selection process and consequential appointment order dated 21.12.2018 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘impugned appointment order’) pertaining to the Haryana Superior Judicial Services for the post of Additional District & Sessions Judgeinsofar as it declares Respondent Nos.5 and 6 as successful candidates while excluding the petitioner from the list of selected appointees.

2. Shorn of non-essential details, the relevant factual matrix of the lis in hand is adumbrated, thus:

(i) Aspiring to be a judicial officer, the petitioner applied in response to the advertisement dated 16.7.2015 (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘advertisement in question’) issued by the Registrar (Recruitment), Punjab and Haryana High Court (respondent No.2 herein) for appointment to Haryana Superior Judicial Service, by way of direct recruitment, through a competitive examination. The advertisement in question has been issued in terms of Rule 6(1)(c) of the Haryana Superior Judicial Service Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as ‘2007 Rules’), relevant whereof reads as under:

“HARYANA GOVERNMENT

PERSONNEL DEPARTMENT

Notification

The 10" January, 2007

S..R, 1/Const./Art.309/2007:- In exercise of the powers conferred by article 233 read with the proviso to article 309 of the Constitution of India, the Governor of Haryana in consultation with High Court of Punjab and Haryana hereby makes the following rules regulating the recruitment and conditions of service of persons appointed to the Haryana Superior Judicial Service, namely:-

1. XXX XXX XXX

2. XXX XXX XXX

3. XXX XXX XXX

4. XXX XXX XXX

5. XXX XXX XXX

Regular recruitment.

6. (1) Recruitment to the Service shall be made:-

(a) XXX XXX XXX

(b) XXX XXX XXX

(c) 25 percent of the posts shall be filled by directed recruitment from amongst the eligible advocates on the basis of the written and viva voce test, conducted by the High Court.

XXX XXX XXX

Procedure for direct recruitment.

7. The High Court shall before making recommendations to the Governor invite applications by advertisement and may require the applicants to give such particulars as it may specify and may further hold written examination and viva voce test for recruitment in terms of rule 6(c) above and the maximum marks shall be in the following manner:-

(i) Written Test 750 marks

(ii) Viva Voce 250 marks

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX XXX

XXX XXX xxx”

(ii) Clause 15 of the advertisement in question (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘Clause 15’) reads thus:

“15. Candidates securing 40% or more marks in each paper will be called for viva —voce. But, merely securing 40% or more marks would not confer any right to be called for viva-voce. The High Court shall have the discretion to shortlist the candidates equal to three times the number of vacancies for viva-voce. Further, no candidates will be considered to have successfully qualified the Haryana Superior Judicial Services Examination unless he/she obtains 50% marks (read 45% marks for the SC/ST/BC category candidates) in the aggregate out of the total marks fixed for the written test and viva voce. It is also made clear that no candidate will get the right to be appointed even if he/she obtains 50% marks (read 45% marks for the SC/ST/BC category candidates) in the aggregate of the written test and viva voce. However, candidates will be appointed strictly in the order of merit (category wise) in which they are placed after the result of written test and viva voce.”

(iii) Pursuant to the advertisement in question, the Haryana Superior Judicial Examination-2017 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Examination-2017’) was conducted.

(iv) The conditional/provisional result of the Examination-2017 was declared through a notification dated 31.07.2017 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Provisional Result’), wherein the shortlisted candidates were to appear for the viva-voce, contingent upon successful resolution of their discrepancies/objections noted against their respective Roll Numbers